|
|
 | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Have you considered that that means that MPD files will no longer be able to be rendered by LDraw? (or have I overlooked something?) (...) Yes, but it is a single-level subroutine system like in C. (I complain about it in C, but that is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) These are good points. Perhaps we should define the spec with two levels: "strict MPD" and "expanded MPD". Strict MPD would require everything necessary to render files with ldraw: - All names on FILE statements follow the DOS filenaming (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev) !
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Because we ought to differentiate between files that can be processed directly by LDraw, and those which have to be filtered through another tool (a MPD splitter) before LDraw can render them. If we decide to scrap LDraw compatibility, this is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
| (...) :-( I have fixed my MPD splitter. The updated version will show up on: (URL) tonight (or early tomorrow). Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
| (...) I tend to disagree. Given that the whole point of MPD files is to allow LDraw files to be more portable across multiple machines, I think absolute paths should be disallowed. It doesn't make sense to me to allow absolute paths in a file format (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
|
